Red Light Therapy and Pregnancy: What Research Exists

Last updated: April 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare provider before starting any treatment.

Affiliate Disclosure: We may earn a commission when you purchase through our links. This does not affect our editorial independence.

Quick Answer

Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive therapeutic procedure that uses red and near-infrared lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to irradiate local skin areas.
A 2025 systematic review identified five studies with 105 physically active participants that examined whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery.
PBM has shown promise for chronic pain management, with a 2026 systematic review including 14 studies that demonstrated significant pain reduction in conditions like fibromyalgia and neuropathy.
Research on PBM for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is ongoing, with a 2024 review noting it as a controversial approach aimed at modulating mitochondrial activity.

While many people are curious about red light therapy, also known as photobiomodulation (PBM), during pregnancy, the current research provided for this analysis does not offer specific findings or guidance on this particular topic. Our review of the available studies indicates that PBM is a non-invasive therapeutic procedure that uses red and near-infrared light from lasers or LEDs. This treatment has been explored for various conditions, including chronic pain, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and exercise performance and recovery. For example, a 2026 systematic review included 14 studies on chronic pain, finding that most trials demonstrated significant pain reduction with PBM, especially in fibromyalgia and neuropathy Photobiomodulation for chronic pain. However, the efficacy and safety of PBM during pregnancy are not addressed in these specific research materials. Therefore, individuals considering PBM during pregnancy should consult with a healthcare provider, as the provided scientific literature does not contain information on this specific application.

What is Photobiomodulation (PBM)?

Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive therapeutic procedure. It involves applying red and near-infrared light, typically from lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs), to a localized area of the skin. This process aims to modulate mitochondrial activity within cells. The core principle behind PBM is that specific wavelengths of light can penetrate tissue and interact with chromophores in the cells, particularly cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondria. This interaction is believed to enhance cellular function, reduce inflammation, and promote healing. PBM has been studied as a method to improve various physiological processes and manage different health conditions due to its potential cellular effects.

The application of PBM can vary significantly depending on the target condition and the specific light parameters used. These parameters include the wavelength of light (red or near-infrared), the intensity, the duration of exposure, and the pulse frequency. These variables can influence the depth of penetration and the biological response elicited. For instance, red light typically penetrates superficial tissues, while near-infrared light can reach deeper structures. The versatility of PBM in terms of its application methods and potential cellular mechanisms makes it a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry across diverse medical fields. Researchers continue to explore the optimal protocols for different conditions to maximize therapeutic benefits while ensuring safety.

PBM as a Non-Invasive Treatment

PBM stands out as a non-invasive treatment method. This means it does not require incisions, injections, or other invasive procedures. The light is simply applied to the skin surface, making it a relatively comfortable and low-risk option compared to surgical or pharmaceutical interventions. The non-invasive nature of PBM contributes to its appeal for patients seeking alternatives or complementary therapies for various ailments. Many individuals appreciate treatments that do not involve medications or complex medical procedures, making PBM an attractive option for certain conditions. This characteristic also often means shorter recovery times and fewer post-treatment complications.

The procedure typically involves a device that emits red or near-infrared light directly onto the skin. Patients usually experience no pain during the treatment, only a mild warmth. This ease of application allows for PBM to be administered in a variety of settings, from clinical environments to home-use devices, under appropriate guidance. The development of portable and user-friendly PBM devices has expanded its accessibility, allowing more people to potentially benefit from this technology. However, it is crucial that any PBM treatment, especially for medical conditions, is conducted under the supervision of a qualified healthcare professional to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment protocols.

Mitochondrial Activity Modulation

A key aspect of PBM's proposed mechanism of action involves the modulation of mitochondrial activity. Mitochondria are often called the "powerhouses" of the cell because they generate most of the cell's supply of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is used as a source of chemical energy. When cells are exposed to red and near-infrared light, the photons are absorbed by chromophores within the mitochondria. This absorption is thought to increase mitochondrial respiration and ATP production. Enhanced ATP production can provide cells with more energy to perform their functions, such as repair, regeneration, and reduction of oxidative stress.

Beyond ATP production, PBM is also believed to influence other cellular processes. These can include the activation of transcription factors, gene expression, and the release of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is a signaling molecule that can improve local blood flow and reduce inflammation. By modulating these fundamental cellular activities, PBM aims to restore cellular homeostasis and support the body's natural healing processes. This complex interplay of cellular responses is what makes PBM a versatile therapeutic tool. The precise mechanisms are still being fully elucidated through ongoing research, but the focus on mitochondrial function provides a scientific basis for many of the observed therapeutic effects.

Wavelengths and Delivery Methods

PBM typically utilizes specific wavelengths within the red and near-infrared spectrum. Red light wavelengths usually range from about 600 to 700 nanometers (nm), while near-infrared (NIR) light ranges from about 700 to 1000 nm. These wavelengths are chosen because they can penetrate human tissue more effectively than other wavelengths without causing thermal damage. Different wavelengths may have varying depths of penetration and absorption characteristics, allowing practitioners to target specific tissues or cellular structures. For instance, red light is often used for superficial skin conditions, while NIR light is favored for deeper tissues like muscles, joints, or even brain tissue.

The delivery methods for PBM primarily involve either lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Lasers deliver a coherent, monochromatic, and collimated beam of light, which allows for precise targeting and higher power density. This can be beneficial for specific, localized treatments. LEDs, on the other hand, emit non-coherent light over a broader area, making them suitable for treating larger surface areas or for whole-body applications. Both technologies have their advantages and are used in various PBM devices. The choice between lasers and LEDs often depends on the specific therapeutic goal, the size of the treatment area, and the desired depth of penetration. Research continues to refine the optimal light parameters for different clinical applications.

What Does Research Say About PBM for Chronic Pain?

Research indicates that photobiomodulation (PBM) holds promise as a therapeutic option for managing chronic pain. A comprehensive systematic review published in 2026, conducted by Luciano Maia Alves Ferreira et al., specifically highlighted PBM as a promising alternative for chronic pain management Photobiomodulation for chronic pain. This review aimed to critically assess the existing literature, synthesizing evidence on the analgesic and functional effects, impact on quality of life, and safety profile of PBM in adults suffering from chronic pain conditions. The findings from this review underscore the potential of PBM to reduce pain intensity and improve the overall well-being of patients.

The study included a total of 14 randomized clinical trials, which are considered a high standard of evidence in medical research. These trials covered a diverse range of chronic pain populations, including individuals diagnosed with fibromyalgia, peripheral neuropathies, orofacial pain, and various musculoskeletal pain conditions. The broad scope of conditions investigated suggests that PBM's analgesic effects might be applicable across different types of chronic pain, although the specific mechanisms could vary depending on the underlying pathology. The inclusion of multiple populations helps to provide a more comprehensive understanding of PBM's utility in a clinical setting for chronic pain.

Significant Pain Reduction Observed

Most of the trials included in the 2026 systematic review demonstrated significant reductions in pain intensity following PBM treatment. This effect was particularly notable in patient groups suffering from fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathy. Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, and other symptoms, while peripheral neuropathies involve damage to nerves outside the brain and spinal cord, often leading to pain, numbness, and weakness. The consistent finding of pain reduction across these challenging conditions suggests a robust therapeutic effect of PBM. The primary outcome investigated in these studies was pain intensity, measured using various standardized scales.

For instance, earlier research, such as a 2002 single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, also examined the efficacy of low-power laser therapy for fibromyalgia. This study, published in Lasers Medical Science, provided early indications of PBM's potential in reducing pain for fibromyalgia patients Efficacy of low power laser therapy in fibromyalgia: a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Such findings contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting PBM's role in pain management. The consistent demonstration of pain reduction across multiple studies and conditions reinforces the idea that PBM can be a valuable tool in a multimodal approach to chronic pain.

Functional Gains and Quality of Life

Beyond pain reduction, some studies within the 2026 systematic review also reported improvements in functional gains and quality of life for patients receiving PBM. Functional gains refer to improvements in a patient's ability to perform daily activities, move more freely, or participate in activities they previously found difficult due to pain. Enhanced quality of life encompasses a broader range of benefits, including better sleep, improved mood, and a greater sense of well-being. These secondary outcomes are crucial because chronic pain not only impacts physical sensation but also profoundly affects a person's daily functioning and overall life satisfaction.

The observation of these broader benefits suggests that PBM's effects extend beyond mere pain suppression. By potentially reducing inflammation, promoting tissue repair, and improving cellular energy production, PBM might contribute to a more holistic recovery process. For example, improved function could mean a patient can walk further, perform household tasks with less discomfort, or engage in social activities more readily. These improvements can significantly impact a patient's independence and mental health, highlighting the comprehensive potential of PBM as a therapeutic intervention for chronic pain conditions.

Safety Profile and Adverse Events

The safety profile of PBM in chronic pain management appears favorable. The 2026 systematic review noted a low incidence of adverse events across the included trials. This reinforces the perception of PBM as a generally safe therapeutic method. Adverse events, when reported, were typically mild and transient, such as temporary skin redness or warmth at the treatment site. The low risk of serious side effects is a significant advantage, especially for chronic conditions that often require long-term management. Patients and clinicians are often keen to explore treatments that offer efficacy with minimal potential harm.

However, the review also pointed out a challenge in standardizing results: the heterogeneity of technical parameters used across different studies. This means that variables like the specific wavelength, power density, treatment duration, and frequency of sessions often differed between trials. Such variability can make it difficult to compare results directly and to establish universally optimized PBM protocols for specific chronic pain conditions. Despite this, the consistent finding of low adverse event rates across diverse protocols supports the overall safety of PBM when administered appropriately. Ongoing research aims to refine these technical parameters to establish more standardized and effective treatment guidelines.

Is Whole-Body PBM Effective for Exercise Performance and Recovery?

The efficacy of whole-body photobiomodulation (PBM) for enhancing exercise performance and recovery has been a subject of scientific inquiry. A systematic review published in Lasers in Medical Science in 2025, led by Mario Álvarez-Martínez et al., specifically evaluated this question. This review aimed to determine how effective whole-body PBM is in these contexts and to compare its findings with the established effects observed in localized PBM studies. The researchers conducted a thorough search across multiple databases, including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and Google Scholar, using specific search terms to identify relevant studies on human participants.

The review identified a limited number of studies that met its strict inclusion criteria. Out of 193 screened articles, only five studies were ultimately included in the qualitative synthesis. These five studies involved a total of 105 physically active participants, representing both sexes and engaging in various exercise modalities. This relatively small number of studies and participants highlights the nascent stage of research into whole-body PBM specifically for exercise performance and recovery. While localized PBM has a more extensive research base in this area, the whole-body approach is still being thoroughly investigated to understand its unique benefits and limitations.

Impact on Sleep Quality

Interestingly, two of the five identified studies reported an improvement in sleep quality among participants who received whole-body PBM. This improvement was determined through both subjective questionnaires and commercial sleep trackers, providing a dual assessment of sleep quality. The studies also noted higher serum melatonin levels and lower nocturnal heart rates in these participants. Melatonin is a hormone that plays a crucial role in regulating sleep-wake cycles, and higher levels are often associated with better sleep. A lower nocturnal heart rate can indicate a more relaxed state, conducive to restful sleep.

These findings suggest that whole-body PBM might have a beneficial effect on sleep physiology. While not directly related to exercise performance or recovery in terms of muscle repair or fatigue biomarkers, improved sleep is a critical component of overall recovery and athletic performance. Adequate sleep allows the body to repair tissues, consolidate memories, and restore energy levels. Therefore, even if whole-body PBM does not directly impact exercise biomarkers, its potential to enhance sleep quality could indirectly contribute to better recovery and performance over time. This area warrants further investigation to understand the specific mechanisms through which PBM influences sleep.

No Evidence for Exercise Performance or Fatigue Biomarkers

Despite the observed improvements in sleep quality, none of the five studies included in the 2025 systematic review reported any direct benefit of whole-body PBM on biomarkers of fatigue or actual exercise performance. Biomarkers of fatigue typically include measures such as lactate levels, creatine kinase, or subjective ratings of perceived exertion, which indicate the physiological stress and recovery status after exercise. Exercise performance is usually assessed through metrics like strength, power output, endurance, or time to exhaustion. The absence of positive findings in these direct measures is a significant observation.

This lack of evidence suggests that, based on the current limited research, whole-body PBM may not directly enhance the physiological aspects of exercise performance or accelerate the biological processes of recovery as measured by common biomarkers. This contrasts with some findings from localized PBM studies, which have shown benefits in these areas. The discrepancy between localized and whole-body applications points to the need for more targeted research. It could be that the dosage, duration, or light distribution in whole-body PBM protocols needs to be optimized, or that the mechanisms of action for localized versus systemic PBM differ in these contexts.

Discrepancies with Localized PBM Studies

The conclusion of the 2025 systematic review highlighted the need for further research to resolve discrepancies between the observed benefits of whole-body PBM and those established in localized PBM studies Whole-body PBM for exercise and recovery. Localized PBM, applied directly to specific muscle groups or areas affected by exercise, has often shown positive effects on reducing muscle soreness, accelerating recovery, and even improving performance metrics. This could be due to higher localized energy delivery, better penetration to target tissues, or more concentrated cellular responses.

Whole-body PBM, by its nature, distributes light energy over a much larger surface area. This might result in a lower power density reaching specific tissues compared to a localized application, potentially leading to less pronounced physiological effects on performance and fatigue biomarkers. Alternatively, the systemic effects of whole-body PBM might manifest differently, focusing more on general well-being, such as sleep, rather than acute physiological improvements in exercise metrics. Understanding these differences is crucial for guiding future research and for developing effective PBM protocols tailored to specific goals, whether it's localized recovery or broader systemic benefits.

What About PBM for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)?

Photobiomodulation (PBM) has emerged as a topic of discussion for the management of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), particularly the dry form of the condition. AMD is a leading cause of vision loss, especially among older adults, affecting the macula—the central part of the retina responsible for sharp, detailed vision. The conventional treatments for dry AMD are limited, often focusing on nutritional supplements to slow progression. Therefore, novel approaches like PBM are being explored for their potential to halt or even reverse the progression of the disease.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in International Journal of Retina and Vitreous in 2024 specifically investigated the efficacy of PBM in age-related macular degeneration. This review, conducted by Tiago N O Rassi et al., aimed to assess the statistical and clinical significance of PBM as a potential approach for managing dry AMD PBM efficacy in age-related macular degeneration. The researchers systematically searched prominent medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PBM to a sham treatment in patients with dry AMD.

PBM as a Controversial Approach

Despite the ongoing research, PBM is currently considered a controversial approach for managing dry AMD. The term "controversial" suggests that there is not yet a widespread consensus among the scientific and medical communities regarding its definitive efficacy and clinical relevance. While some preliminary studies or individual practitioners might report positive outcomes, the overall body of evidence, especially from high-quality randomized controlled trials, may not be strong enough to establish PBM as a standard or universally recommended treatment. This controversy often arises when new therapies show promise but lack robust, consistent data across multiple large-scale studies.

The debate typically centers on the consistency of results, the optimal treatment parameters (such as wavelength, intensity, and duration), and the long-term benefits of PBM for AMD patients. Clinicians and researchers require clear evidence of both statistical significance (that the observed effects are not due to chance) and clinical significance (that the effects are meaningful enough to improve patient outcomes in a real-world setting). Until these aspects are thoroughly addressed through rigorous research, PBM will likely remain a debated topic in the field of ophthalmology for AMD treatment.

Aiming to Halt or Reverse Progression

The primary objective of using PBM in AMD treatment is to halt or reverse the progression of the disease. Dry AMD is characterized by the accumulation of drusen (yellow deposits) and thinning of the macula, leading to gradual vision loss. Current treatments primarily focus on slowing this progression. PBM's proposed mechanism of action in AMD involves modulating mitochondrial activity within the retinal cells. Retinal cells, particularly photoreceptors, are highly metabolically active and rich in mitochondria. They are also susceptible to oxidative stress, which is believed to play a role in AMD pathology.

By enhancing mitochondrial function, PBM is thought to improve cellular energy production, reduce oxidative stress, and potentially promote the health and survival of retinal cells. This could, in theory, slow down the degenerative processes in the macula, prevent further vision loss, or even restore some lost function. The idea is that healthier, more energetic retinal cells would be better equipped to resist damage and maintain their function. While this theoretical framework is compelling, the challenge lies in consistently demonstrating these effects in human clinical trials and ensuring that any observed benefits are both statistically robust and clinically meaningful for patients.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Findings

The 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis specifically evaluated PBM efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for dry AMD. RCTs are considered the gold standard for evaluating treatment effectiveness because they minimize bias. The researchers performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations to assess both statistical and clinical significance. TSA helps to determine if enough data has been accumulated to draw reliable conclusions, while MCID identifies whether the observed changes are significant enough to be perceived as beneficial by patients.

The review applied a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to analyze the data, which is a common statistical approach for combining results from multiple studies, especially when there is heterogeneity among them. The background section of the study noted that PBM offers a controversial approach, underscoring the ongoing debate about its effectiveness. The specific results of this meta-analysis regarding PBM's statistical and clinical significance in halting or reversing AMD progression were the focus of this rigorous evaluation. The findings from such a comprehensive analysis are crucial for guiding future clinical practice and research directions in the use of PBM for age-related macular degeneration.

Are There Safety Concerns with PBM?

When considering any therapeutic intervention, safety is a paramount concern. For photobiomodulation (PBM), research has generally indicated a favorable safety profile, particularly in studies related to chronic pain management. The non-invasive nature of PBM inherently reduces many risks associated with more invasive medical procedures. However, like any treatment that interacts with biological systems, it is important to understand the reported incidence of adverse events and the factors that might influence safety. The scientific literature provides insights into what has been observed regarding PBM's safety.

Studies on chronic pain, for example, have consistently reported a low incidence of adverse events associated with PBM. The 2026 systematic review on PBM in chronic pain, which included 14 studies, specifically highlighted that the incidence of adverse events was low. This finding reinforces the method's safety. When adverse events do occur, they are typically mild and transient, such as temporary skin redness, warmth at the treatment site, or slight discomfort. These reactions are usually short-lived and resolve on their own without requiring further medical intervention. The rarity of severe adverse events makes PBM an attractive option for patients seeking therapies with minimal risks.

Low Incidence of Adverse Events

The low incidence of adverse events is a recurring theme in PBM research. This observation is crucial for patient acceptance and clinical adoption of the therapy. For chronic conditions that often require repeated and long-term treatment sessions, a therapy with a benign safety profile is highly desirable. Patients are more likely to adhere to a treatment regimen if they experience few or no uncomfortable side effects. The non-thermal nature of low-level light therapy, which PBM typically employs, also contributes to its safety. Unlike high-power lasers used in surgery, PBM devices use light at intensities that do not cause significant tissue heating or damage.

The safety aspects are also critical when considering the various populations that might benefit from PBM. While this article does not contain information on PBM and pregnancy, the general understanding of PBM's low risk profile is derived from studies on adult populations with various conditions. The consistent reporting of minimal adverse events across different research contexts, such as those for pain, exercise recovery, and even ocular conditions, builds confidence in the general safety of the technology when applied within established protocols. However, it is always recommended that treatments be administered by trained professionals who can ensure correct device operation and patient monitoring.

Impact of Technical Parameter Heterogeneity

While PBM generally appears safe, the heterogeneity of technical parameters across different studies can complicate the standardization of results, including those related to safety. "Heterogeneity" refers to the variability in how PBM is applied in different research settings. This includes differences in the light source (laser vs. LED), specific wavelengths used (e.g., 660 nm vs. 810 nm), power density (mW/cm²), total energy delivered (Joules), duration of treatment sessions, number of sessions, and the interval between sessions. Each of these parameters can influence how the light interacts with biological tissues and, consequently, the therapeutic outcome and potential for side effects.

The 2026 systematic review on chronic pain explicitly mentioned that "the heterogeneity of technical parameters compromises the standardization of results." This means that while PBM is generally safe, it can be challenging to pinpoint the exact parameters that consistently yield the best safety and efficacy across all patients and conditions. For example, a protocol that is safe and effective for musculoskeletal pain might not be optimal or equally safe for a different condition or a different patient population if the parameters are significantly altered without proper research. This variability underscores the importance of ongoing research to establish standardized, evidence-based protocols that optimize both efficacy and safety for specific applications. Proper training and adherence to manufacturer guidelines for PBM devices are also essential to mitigate any potential risks arising from incorrect use.

How Does PBM Compare to Other Therapies?

When evaluating any new or emerging therapy like photobiomodulation (PBM), it is essential to understand how it performs in comparison to existing, conventional treatments or placebo interventions. This comparative analysis helps to establish the unique value, efficacy, and role of PBM within the broader landscape of medical treatments. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are specifically designed for this purpose, allowing researchers to compare PBM protocols against a control group that might receive a placebo, a sham treatment, or an active conventional therapy. This rigorous study design helps to isolate the specific effects of PBM.

In the context of chronic pain management, for instance, randomized clinical trials have frequently compared PBM protocols to placebo, sham, or conventional care. A placebo treatment is an inert substance or procedure given to a control group to mimic the active treatment, helping to account for the psychological effects of receiving treatment. A sham treatment involves using a non-active PBM device or technique that appears identical to the active treatment but delivers no therapeutic light, thus blinding participants to their treatment assignment. Comparing PBM to conventional care involves assessing its effectiveness against established treatments like medication, physical therapy, or other interventions typically used for a specific condition.

PBM Versus Placebo/Sham in Chronic Pain

In many of the studies on chronic pain, PBM has demonstrated significant advantages when compared to placebo or sham treatments. The 2026 systematic review on chronic pain, for example, highlighted that most trials showed significant pain reduction with PBM. This indicates that the observed pain relief was not merely a placebo effect but a direct result of the light therapy itself. This is a critical distinction for any new therapy, as it provides scientific credibility to its claims of efficacy. The ability of PBM to outperform sham treatments suggests a genuine physiological mechanism at play, rather than just psychological expectation.

For conditions like fibromyalgia, where pain can be pervasive and difficult to manage with traditional methods, the findings are particularly important. A study from 2002 explicitly investigated the efficacy of low-power laser therapy in fibromyalgia in a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial. This type of trial design directly compares the active treatment to an inactive one, providing clear evidence of PBM's specific effect on pain reduction. The fact that PBM can achieve significant pain relief where placebo cannot suggests it offers a tangible therapeutic benefit for patients suffering from chronic pain, making it a valuable addition to treatment options.

PBM in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

For age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the comparison often involves PBM against a sham treatment in randomized controlled trials. The 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis on PBM efficacy in AMD specifically focused on RCTs comparing PBM versus a sham in patients with dry AMD. The use of a sham control in ocular studies is crucial to account for any perceived improvements that might arise from the act of receiving treatment, separate from the actual light exposure. This is particularly relevant for conditions like AMD where subjective visual improvements can sometimes be influenced by patient expectations.

The goal of these comparisons in AMD research is to determine if PBM can statistically and clinically halt or reverse disease progression more effectively than no active intervention. As mentioned, PBM for AMD aims to modulate mitochondrial activity to protect and rejuvenate retinal cells. If PBM can demonstrate superior outcomes in terms of visual acuity, drusen reduction, or other relevant biomarkers compared to a sham, it would strengthen its position as a viable therapeutic option. However, the existing research notes PBM as a "controversial approach," indicating that definitive, widely accepted evidence of superiority over sham for AMD is still a subject of ongoing debate and research.

PBM for Exercise Performance and Recovery

In the realm of exercise performance and recovery, comparisons are often made between whole-body PBM and control groups, or even against localized PBM applications. The 2025 systematic review on whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery provides a good example. This review included studies that compared whole-body PBM against control conditions. The findings revealed that while whole-body PBM might improve sleep quality, it showed no evidence of benefits for exercise recovery or performance biomarkers when compared to control groups. This suggests that for direct physiological improvements related to exercise, whole-body PBM may not be as effective as other interventions or even localized PBM.

The review also implicitly compares whole-body PBM to localized PBM by stating that "further research is necessary to resolve discrepancies with the benefits observed in localized PBM studies." This highlights that localized PBM has a more established track record for improving exercise-related outcomes, such as reducing muscle soreness or improving strength. The differences in efficacy between whole-body and localized applications suggest that the method of light delivery and the concentration of light energy in specific tissues play a significant role. Therefore, while PBM as a technology holds promise, its specific application and comparison against alternatives are crucial for determining its optimal use.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is red light therapy safe for everyone?

Red light therapy, or photobiomodulation (PBM), has generally been reported with a low incidence of adverse events in studies, particularly in the context of chronic pain. The 2026 systematic review on PBM for chronic pain noted that the method's safety was reinforced by the low occurrence of adverse events across 14 included trials. These events are typically mild and temporary, such as skin redness. However, the research provided does not cover all populations, such as pregnant individuals, and the safety for everyone cannot be universally confirmed without specific studies.

What conditions has red light therapy been studied for?

Red light therapy has been studied for a variety of conditions, as evidenced by the provided research. It has been investigated for chronic pain, including fibromyalgia, peripheral neuropathies, orofacial pain, and musculoskeletal pain, with a 2026 systematic review including 14 studies on these conditions. PBM has also been explored as a controversial approach for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), as highlighted in a 2024 systematic review. Additionally, whole-body PBM has been studied for exercise performance and recovery, with a 2025 review identifying five studies with 105 participants.

How does red light therapy work?

Red light therapy works by using specific wavelengths of red and near-infrared light to irradiate localized areas of the skin. This non-invasive procedure aims to modulate mitochondrial activity within cells. By enhancing mitochondrial function, PBM is thought to increase cellular energy production (ATP), reduce oxidative stress, and influence other cellular processes like inflammation. For instance, in AMD, PBM's goal is to halt or reverse progression through this mitochondrial activity modulation, as noted in a 2024 systematic review.

Can red light therapy improve sleep?

Yes, some research suggests that whole-body red light therapy may improve sleep quality. A 2025 systematic review on whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery found that two of the five included studies reported better sleep quality. This was determined by subjective questionnaires and commercial sleep trackers, and included observations of higher serum melatonin and lower nocturnal heart rates in participants using whole-body PBM. However, the review also stated that whole-body PBM showed no evidence of benefits for exercise recovery or performance.

Are there any side effects of red light therapy?

Based on the provided research, red light therapy appears to have a low incidence of side effects. For example, a 2026 systematic review on PBM for chronic pain reported a low occurrence of adverse events across 14 studies, reinforcing the method's safety. When side effects do occur, they are typically mild and transient, such as temporary skin redness or warmth at the treatment site. The heterogeneity of technical parameters across different studies, however, can compromise the standardization of results regarding both efficacy and safety.